Skip to Main Content
Evaluating revised biomass equations: are some forest types more equivalent than others?Author(s): Coeli M. Hoover; James E. Smith
Source: Carbon Balance and Management. 11(1): article 2.
Publication Series: Scientific Journal (JRNL)
Station: Northern Research Station
View PDF (1.0 MB)
DescriptionBackground: In 2014, Chojnacky et al. published a revised set of biomass equations for trees of temperate US forests, expanding on an existing equation set (published in 2003 by Jenkins et al.), both of which were developed from published equations using a meta-analytical approach. Given the similarities in the approach to developing the equations, an examination of similarities or differences in carbon stock estimates generated with both sets of equations benefits investigators using the Jenkins et al. (For Sci 49:12–34, 2003) equations or the software tools into which they are incorporated. We provide a roadmap for applying the newer set to the tree species of the US, present results of equivalence testing for carbon stock estimates, and provide some general guidance on circumstances when equation choice is likely to have an effect on the carbon stock estimate. Results: Total carbon stocks in live trees, as predicted by the two sets, differed by less than one percent at a national level. Greater differences, sometimes exceeding 10–15 %, were found for individual regions or forest type groups. Differences varied in magnitude and direction; one equation set did not consistently produce a higher or lower estimate than the other. Conclusions: Biomass estimates for a few forest type groups are clearly not equivalent between the two equation sets—southern pines, northern spruce-fir, and lower productivity arid western forests—while estimates for the majority of forest type groups are generally equivalent at the scales presented. Overall, the possibility of very different results between the Chojnacky and Jenkins sets decreases with aggregate summaries of those ‘equivalent’ type groups.
- Check the Northern Research Station web site to request a printed copy of this publication.
- Our on-line publications are scanned and captured using Adobe Acrobat.
- During the capture process some typographical errors may occur.
- Please contact Sharon Hobrla, firstname.lastname@example.org if you notice any errors which make this publication unusable.
- We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
- This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
CitationHoover, Coeli M.; Smith, James E. 2016. Evaluating revised biomass equations: are some forest types more equivalent than others? Carbon Balance and Management. 11(1): article 2.
KeywordsBiomass estimation, Allometry, Forest carbon stocks, Tests of equivalence, Individual-tree estimates by species group
- FIA's volume-to-biomass conversion method (CRM) generally underestimates biomass in comparison to published equations
- Investigation into calculating tree biomass and carbon in the FIADB using a biomass expansion factor approach
- Estimating aboveground tree biomass on forest land in the Pacific Northwest: a comparison of approaches
XML: View XML